tv Washington Journal CSPAN February 27, 2011 7:00am-10:01am EST
perez on the attempt to redraw districts. and then they talk about an interview later with muammar gaddafi, his mental state, and the implications for his country. "washington journal" is next. host: good morning. it is a back to work week for members of the house and senate. at the white house, president obama is at the white house most of this week. he is in miami on friday. in new york, the un secretary general congratulating the secretary -- security council in taking a united stand against libya. slapping sanctions on the
libyaan leader, his family, and assisted. the white house is urging the leader to leave as soon as possible. in wisconsin, the budget battle continues. good morning for this sunday, february 27. if you could advise the president to sit down with one person, who would that be? 202-737-0001 our line for republicans and 202-737-0002 for democrats and if you are an independent, the number to call is 202-628-0205. a look at some of the headlines from outside washington. in madison, wisconsin, saturday's gathering the largest so far as 70,000 demonstrated against the budget cuts. the headline is -- the anatomy
of a protest. meanwhile, from the pittsburgh post gazette, obama urges gadhafi to quit. many believe the changes could herald a new dawn of a new epoch after centuries of humiliation in the arab world. the "chicago tribune", rahm emanuel prepares to take over as the new mayor on may 16. advice for the new mayor. if he won with 55% of the vote. in boston, the boston globe, a sign of the times. the governor taking aim at agency salaries. a visor isvel earning more than twice -- earning morerare
than twice that of the governor. on friday, we received a viewer who called in with a suggestion and charlie cook who joins us have some follow the advice. let's show you what happened on friday morning on "washington journal." caller: for c-span, i would love you to do it showed to ask people if your president, how they would fix jobs? my idea is to group together people with the loans. guest: let me add on another suggestion. if you could advise the president to talk to one or two or three people, who would it be? who would they love the president to sit down with and have lunch with and have a conversation with and pick their brains. i think that would be an adjunct to that.
host: so we are taking his advice and we're asking you, if you could advise the president to sit down with one person, would that be and what should they talk about? jamie joins us from indianapolis. caller: in light of the suspectscall in paulo is acknowledging that he was duped -- colin powell was duped into acknowledging -- the speech at the u.n. i would like the president to talk to him about ending the war is that is costing us so much. our priorities are mixed up. he is not one man who can combat lobbyists money to give money to the rich with tax breaks. i think colin powell would be a
good person. they could make the announcement together that we are taking a drawdown. host: thanks for the call. next is what we joining us from annapolis. who should them president meet with? caller: could gentleman who spoke first stole my thunder. the other person would be as schultze with reference to progressive issues. -- ed schultze. host: by the way, you can join the conversation by sending us an e-mail. our address is journal@c- span.org. david joining us from lynn, massachusetts, on the republican line. who should the president meet with? caller: how are you, my friend? i think he should meet with
caspar weinberger, the former secretary of defense. he should also meet with william f. buckley and ronald reagan himself because this man needs of good dose of common sense conservatism. what i mean is the fact that the media portrayed him as somewhat of a centrist, but we know he is a far left. he makes though clinton look like a right winger. host: you pointed out individuals that passed away. hartford, connecticut, democrats line. good morning. caller: he should meet with former president bill clinton who has the depth and the knowledge to give him advice now. bill clinton has experience with government shutdowns, and he has experience on the economy. he just met a couple of months ago about tax reforms.
host: last december. caller: i think the former president is the one he should talk to. host: a couple of other headlines this morning. signs of a civil war in the turmoil in the middle east specifically in libya. army leaders are preparing to dispatch a rebel force to tripoli to support the uprising there. the prospect of a rebel army marching on the capital to confront loyalists members of the same ari raised the specter of all right civil war and the country already polarized between supporters and opponents of the muammar gaddafi r egime. next is john, independent line, florida. caller: i have a different topic. i understand you're talking about and we want the president
to talk to. i just want to talk about the problem is that we have with unemployment. i do not think so. what we have is a work visa problem. america allows so many people to come over with visas and taking american jobs. the american people are cracking down on americans, unions, instead of looking at work visas. people come over with visas and they do not leave. what we must do is get everyone with an work visas to read- register and get everything straight. host: hostdesmond. good morning, democrats line. what is your advice? caller: i think he should start with ex-president clinton, because when he was in office everything was going good. i think he would get some strong advice from him. host: john from a new market,
alabama. one person the president should meet with. caller: i will be selfish and say i wish it was me. host: what would you tell them? caller: i would talk about the balance between realpolitik and values and the development of national objectives and what is in our interests overseas. i would talk about jobs, the deficit, and a spending, the strategic triad. and the jobs being the most important what i would also like to do as long as i am washing is i would like to hear what is on his mind, his thoughts. in particular, i would really like to have insight as to the kinds of information that comes into the white house, and information that we can only think about from the briefings, from the context of people that are not made public. i do not mean that in a sinister way. there is a flow of information
and to that level of government that most of us and a level of complexity and considerations that i think it is lost on many of us. i would love to have the insight to that. i would be selfish. i would pick his brain as much as i would want to give him my own thoughts. host: what you think you would learn from him? do you think you have a different opinion if you found out the type of information when it comes to a homeland security and terrorism? caller: you might. for example, i will be tongue- in-cheek, but are there really -- do they really suspect or do we have evidence, for example, that terrorists are coming across the border from mexico? maybe we do. i do not know. what are our real interest overseas? what draws the economy. what are the things -- let me put it another way. when you have someone running for national office and we will
talk about the president who is making campaign promises and once they get into office they do not fulfil them. were they empty promises? have they learned something they did not know before that change their opinion. why is guantanamo still open? there is another example. there was a strong campaign theme and yet it is still there. why is it? what has he learned? those are the kinds of things that i think it would help all lot of ordinary folks like me better understand what goes on and our government turn. host: the story that was posted on the dredge report yesterday -- the drudge report yesterday, new gingrich puts the focus on fate. we could hear whether or not he is running for president this week. newt gingrich and needs no
introduction to most republican audiences. it is the reintroduction that is the challenge. if he moves forward with a bid, as his advisers say, he will start with a reputation as one of the parties most creative thinkers and a record of leading republicans back to power in the 1990's and confronting democrats on spending but he will have to grapple with aspects of his life and a career that could give pause to elements of the electorate, including a lack of well established association with religious conservatives and attending questions about his two divorces. in the body of the story, there is this. when the conversation turned to merit and the end of the 30 minute interview, -- turned to marriage, at the end of the interview, he said he hoped that voters would look at the totality of someone who is 67 years old and a grandfather. asked if he believed the people
are forgiving, he replied, we will find out. wes, democrats line. one person for the president to meet with. caller: he should meet with a general or a contractor with in the u.s. and ask how their businesses going. i am talking about small people. just general working people. he should talk to some small business owners. he should have our roundtable with them. give him an idea of what is going on out in the country. i'm not sure they can give them advice, other than to say, what you need to do is put more money in the hands of working people so they can purchase the services and the products that the country needs. that is to i would have them talk to. i would get him down to the ground level and stay away from all the think tanks that
populate c-span left and right and get down and talk to regular working people. host: bloomberg business week -- would you invest in a country that lost $2 trillion last year and has a net negative worth of $44 trillion? "the national review" -- the former minnesota governor is a strong presidential bid. road to the capitol -- a look at six members and their road to the house of representatives. that is the cover story of "national journal". bill is joining us from tampa. good morning. one person the president would meet with. who should that be? caller: i believe it should be newt gingrich, not because he is a wizard but primarily because he has a perspective on the global economics as well as history.
we can solve our problem within a 60-90 days by reversing the outsourcing of service jobs to asia, malaysia, etc.. we have 5 million jobs over there. these are the people that answer the telephone when you call for service. these jobs used to be in this country. we, as a country, are being scam. it is just that simple. these people pay no taxes. the corporations pay no taxes. they are employing people sent because the communications allows us to instantly have communications overseas. if we passed one simple regulatory law that stated that to serve united states citizen, you must the united states senate since, this is the way it was set up in the beginning. their reason is simple. if i am calling someone who is not a u.s. citizen and they tell
me alive, there is nothing i can do about it. think about that. us,: if you're just joining we are asking the question for the president, if you could advise him to meet with one person, would that be? this is based in part of your call on friday and the comment of charlie cut. we are getting interesting responses thus far from our email and firstname.lastname@example.org. a viewer from seattle? i think it should be ralph nader. another of your saying that he should meet with john william templeton, on how to create new manufacturing jobs in areas of high unemployment. president obama should get advice from a candidate obama circa 2007. that guy had a lot of good ideas. 202-737-0001 is our line for republicans and 202-737-0002 for democrats.
if you are independent, the number to call is 202-628-0205. "the weekly standard" hazmat -- exit gaddafi. how a no-name new jersey governor became a republican superstar. next is ken from oregon. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i'm ok. thank you. essedust -- real bl to speak with you and hopefully with the public this morning. i am in oregon. and i just got done marching -- watching the economics show with the wonderful harvard finance, what is it? harvardporter,
business school. this morning, i spent my entire evening -- i would call myself ground level. i have much to say this morning and these are things that i have as a member of one of the poor citizens in this economy and state. i just -- host: if you can advise the president to meet with one person, who would it be? caller: i would say or governor from oregon. as a citizen here on the second- largest bay on this side of the coast, i would talk to our governor, if not me or any of us.
i agree with the other callers. we, the little people, have lots of ideas. we have a different point of view. host: we of the story from inside business week -- the union jack. when five different state houses take up similar pieces of legislation at the same time, is suggest a conspiracy or a crisis. wisconsin, ohio, tennessee, -- would limit the rights of firefighters, teachers to bargain collectively. if all five states were so flawed, it would be easy to reject this idea, but ohio opposed to legislature is a more serious piece of work. it abolishes collective bargaining without suggesting specific cuts, removing them from the discussion. the urgency to narrow any
immediate deficit. $8o's immediate deficit is billion. union members make up 7% of the private-sector work force, down from 20% in 1980 and 36% of public-sector workers. in 2011, the recession exposed every one of america's -- every one of america's inefficiencies. it may be time to rethink public unions. next is christine from pennsylvania. one person for the person to meet with. who would you advise him to talk with? caller: robert reich. he has a terrific plan for the taxation of the american people. he starts out with no one getting taxed until $50,000. the top tax rate is 70%. the point of this whole taxation plan, i think, is when a ceo is
offered these huge, huge amounts of money, instead of taking it and being taxed, they will put the money back into businesses, fire some more people, do the united states some good -- hire more people. i disagree with a previous article that you just read. disturbing. host: thank you. our twitter page is twitter.com /cspanwj. it is down right now. from the "new york daily news", two headlines muammar gaddafi ups the ante. no more moammar. cathy joins us from oklahoma city, oklahoma. one person for the president to meet with, what is your advice? caller: first off, he needs to start listening to the citizens
of this country. he has pretty much puts us back. he does not take us seriously. that is why the tea party is so successful. it is about time that he realizes that we employ him. as far as business goes, i really, i think that ross perot, guys that are successful businessmen, talk to him about how to get a business. what about president of the past -- reagan, clinton? they did an outstanding job. if he would just review all the material that he has and stop playing president. he did more vacations than any president has ever done. in a time when the economy is at its worst. it is time he grows up and starts taking his job seriously. and it seriously, take us serious. listen to what we have to say.
i think it is about time as far as citizens go, we need to get these bums out of congress. the democrats are running away. they should be fired. this is crazy. i could not do that on my job. just take off and not suffer consequences. it is about time this country gets back to the basics. and what the constitution stands for. he needs to listen to the citizens that elected him. host: from our twitter page. it is back up. the one person would be an accountant because president obama clearly does not understand money into debt. we talked about new gingrich, the front page of "the new york times" -- the headline is that we could learn this week and possibly an announcement of the former house speaker entering the presidential race. he would be the first entering
the gop field. there is also a piece in the outlook section of "the washington post", y el schaub downbeat's standing down. the washington establishment believes that the government shutdown in 1995 was a mistake that accomplished little. the facts are exactly the opposite. while the shutdown produced short-term pain, it set the stage for a budget deal in 1996 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. the discipline imposed by this budget, overall spending grew at 2.9% a year while i was speaker of the house, the slowest rate in decades. it allowed us to reach a balanced budget deal in 1997. tracie joins us from albany, new york. one person for the president to meet with, who would that be? caller: good morning. i am going to say he needs to meet with someone like ron paul, someone who can give me
advice on the dollar. as a reserve, it is the cause of all of our economic problems globally and worldwide. on employment, taxation. if you get the dollar back by something, you know, it would be worth more. right now you cannot even buy anything with the dollar. if we get the dollar stronger, that should be the goal of the united states of america. there would be no reason for it -- wisconsin to try to tax the teachers more money. you know, everyone would be happy if you could save your dollar, but what you want to save a dollar for? host: from this morning, "governor's fear that federal debt may hobble recovery. federal budget cuts could crimp a fragile economic recovery.
governors of both parties asking the president to give them more flexibility in running education and health care programs. the recession may have ended, but we are faced with unprecedented fiscal challenges. that is the comment from the governor of washington state. she is the chair of nga. states cut $75 billion from the budget in two years and collectively face a $175 billion gap in the next two years. live coverage of the winter meeting next on underway -- that got underway yesterday. one person for the president to meet with. what is your advice? caller: i would like to be me, actually. host: what would you tell them? caller: i do think he is surrounded by politicians and a think tank persons, i believe he needs to hear from someone who
is an average, ordinary person who has a variety of life experiences. i grew up in a coalminer's daughter. i became an award winning teacher through adverse circumstances. then i became ill and has dealt with a very serious illness. i know what it is like to deal with the health care system and all of the intricacies of that. i would also like to know if c- span could pluck out a deal with the president where he could come on maybe quarterly and allow us to call him and or ask hime him questions. as you have guessed that are on the sunday shows and live collins, it would be a wonderful thing if you could make the arrangement with him and he could connect with people like me. host: we would love to do that.
we have asked him as a candidate and as president on a number of occasions and a number of different formats, taking calls and e-mails and tweets. we will not give up. we would love to have on the program. "the new york times", why won't the tea party shut it down? the goal of the tea party is to destroy government, not to balance its budget. joe says that the president should meet with anyone who lived under communism so he could find out what it is really like. bob on the republican line from arkansas. good morning. caller: the good morning, steve. this is my second time. i cannot remember the woman's name because my computer is down, because it is the young woman that survived abortion. i would love to have the president talk to her. hoping that it might stir his
compassion, may be caused him to consider all those millions of souls and how that relates to human rights in this country and maybe it would cause him and some of his advisers to connect some of the dots on whty our economy is so bad. if they have -- if we had all of those millions of people, some of them would be adults, paying into social security, and their offspring, it boggles my mind of how many millions of people we turned our backs on in this wadery because roe v. says it is legal. i do not think god says its lega. l paul is a goodl is choice." the lesson for today's house republicans is simple -- work to
keep the government open and it involves breaking your word to the american people. we are joined from lynchburg, virginia. good morning. caller: what a great program you are and what a wonderful public service. i am so glad that c-span exist. i look at this and i have a lot of concerns and there are a couple of different areas where i would like to suggest that the president speak to a different person in a couple of different areas. i believe he has got a terrible perspective on our civil rights and i would love for him to speak to -- concerning his terrible record on civil rights i would like in the area of economics that he talk to a hybrid person -- half of paul krugman who can bring some reality into the sense that our economy, the reason that businesses are not investing in
jobs is because they do not think that there are people out there to buy any new products. it is a demand, like a demand which is causing problems. i think peter stockman from the reagan years, the omb director, could help them there. in the area of social structure, i wish he would speak with naomi klein. and the one person that has done probably more than most presidents in the modern era to effect change, ralph nader. i think ralph was almost single- handedly responsible for the creation of the epa. i think obama has lost his way. finally, in the area of taxation, i hope it would sit down with them and respect warren buffett and let him hear and understand that the current
tax inequality and raising taxes on the upper levels of folks would not be any sort of drag on our economy. and that it is fundamentally fair. we have a revenue shortage in our country. host: the president giving warren buffett a presidential medal of freedom. i think you mean david stockman. caller: he shows that supply- side economics failed because it called for cutting taxes and cutting spending. host: one of our new twitter followers. president obama should meet with the desmond tutu. stephen hayes has this in "the weekly standard", administration address? on february 15, thousands of
demonstrators filled the streets of libyan streets. the regime ordered mercenaries to put down the violence with force. a bloody battle followed and as the crackdown began, it was early afternoon on february 16 in the state department briefing room where the obama administration faced questions about how it regarded muammar gaddafi. is he a dictator? in the daily briefing, he smiled at the question and turned is said to call on another reporter. are you stumped? so what is your answer to the question. he smirked, i do not think he came to office through the democratic process. we heard from the president who called on the un security council, 15-0, calling for
increased sanctions on libya. it is time for muammar gaddafi to go. we will talk about what is next for libya with arnaud de borchgrave. good morning on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. the one person i think president obama should take counsel from is mainly his base. i think ed schultz and nancy pelosi are good representatives of his base. i think this last election was mainly won by republicans because we were disappointed that we did not get the public option that he ran on in 2008. nd tehe base is disappointed that he is always compromising and giving up
for to the we voted republicans. if he goes back to his base, i think that things would get much better. host: for "the washington post", gop governor is gambling on the challenge to the public sector union. a gallup poll taken at the height of the standoff finding that 61% of americans and a majority of independents do not favor eliminating collective bargaining for state employees in their own states, and yet republican governors are taking the unions on at a time when public opinion of organized labor is at a low point. 45% have a positive view, down to the lowest level in a quarter of the center. the question we are asking is, if you could advise the president to meet with one person, who with that individual be? good morning. caller: how are you doing? i think the lady had a great
idea about the president taking calls. even if they were screened and the questions were reasonable. with everything going on in the world, why are we talking about this this morning? i think the question should be, who he should not be talking to. evidently the ones he is talking to is not helping in that much prepar. host: we are focusing on the the news of the day. chriswsmaker wirs show with van hollen with the budget. we had a caller that phoned in on friday and we thought it was an interesting question to find out we think the president should meet. caller: i think he should meet with citizens on both sides, and because he should not seem to take sides as much as he seems to. host: he has an open invitation
to come on this program any time in any format. we would love for him to take calls and talk directly to you. tony is joining us from orlando, florida. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i would like for the president to sit down and talk to me. host: what would you tell them? caller: i would tell him that -- thank him for doing a great job. as an african-american, the matter what he do or how we do it, it will not be right. i think the president is doing a great job, considering all the opposition with the republican party. the democrats did not stick with him. so we had to work with what he had. he is not the type of guy that is going to say, give it all away. that is a businessman. i appreciate the president.
if he comes on c-span, i believe he can answer every question that is presented to him as a man in america. host: next is betty from albuquerque, new mexico. welcome to the conversation. caller: always a pleasure to hear and see you as a moderator on c-span. my suggestion is, former president jimmy carter. president jimmy carter has evolved in my estimation into the finest humanitarian, a former president of our time. he was truly a visionary for years ago on energy policy, with his decision to put solar panels on the roof of the white house only to have president reagan tear them down. he also is a visionary regarding the political strife in israel. he wrote a book about this and
was vilified by an number of people for it, and yet, he and desmond tutu, whom somebody else suggested, are in a fairly perfect alignment in their vision about israel. i would like to pare that suggestion and make it a dual suggestion in terms of progressive, i think tom hartman , in conjunction with former president jimmy carter, would be able to advise the president very, very well. when i talk about president carter, too, i think that he could give some much insight to this present president. i would love to see president barack obama truly worthy of the nobel peace prize he has already accepted. i think by talking to these two people, it would be greatly helpful for his future endeavors.
host: fair enough. tim pawlenty the subject of this piece in "the new york times". as tea party patriots meet in phoenix this weekend -- paraphrasing the governor -- the candidate for governor in new york, "the government is too damn big." tea party candidates meeting in phoenix, choosing the site because of the state that has been boycotted because of its crackdown on illegal immigration. it has this idea -- a potus m eeting with jon stewart on "washington journal". pete from columbia, south
carolina. caller: nick gingrich was the real architect behind the balanced budget amendment. everyone talks about clinton. he passed nafta, our jobs went to mexico. he gave china free trade status in 1998. and he repealed glass-stiegel. and those big banks that have now failed. and we have to build about. i do not understand that -- how he is the man to go to after creating those problems. newt would be a great guy to talk to and to get this budget down so our dollar does not keep going down and we do not have to borrow money from china. i do not know how simple that could be, but please, why would bill clinton seemed so great when he had all these problems in the 1990's? host: we have this from the new
york post, a focus on governor andrew cuomo. could discuss the revolt spread to new york? only if governor andrew cuomo gets serious about taking on the unions. we have this comment -- president obama should meet with citizens on both sides, but not for people to accuse him of being a closeted alien. barry from las vegas. good morning. caller: before we can address any of these issues, america has to kick itself in the rear end, the citizens, the common folk, for a reality check, because many of the issues that are at the forefront in today's environment have nothing to do with what we should really be concentrating on. there is a lot of distraction and it is organized destruction appeared to answer the question, i think the president should listen to dillon mattigan.
i have been watching him for the last couple weeks. he has been on a tour across america talking to successful business owners, successful corporations. it has been fascinating to watch. it reminded me of what america should be. i would just like to say, i would like to add a couple of more little things. i think the lady in oklahoma that call then, i think she should tell her representatives and oklahoma that they should listen to the people that elected them and stop being a part of this organized take out of the economy just in order to make obama look bad at so they could get a republican in the white house. host: coming up on "newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m., a live interview with congressman chris van hollen, a democrat from suburban maryland. tonight, on "road to the white house, our conversation with
mike huckabee. he is out with a new book. he is expected to announce in the spring or summer weathered he intends to seek the 2012 republican nomination. another one says that rachel woman.s ondow is one smart seattle. good morning. caller: i would like the president to spend time with the former president of brazil, lula. i just think he is very outstanding and ordinary guy who happened to make extraordinary things for his country. and obama himself actually expressed some interest in spending time with him when they met two years ago, i believe, he was scheduled for only half an hour, but obama insisted to spend time with him. he ended up spending more than
two hours. i read some article in "the new york times." i hope obama learned from that person because he had some terms as a successful president. when he left office, he left the economy in good shape. so i believe obama would learn a lot from him. host: our roundtable will includes a the white house correspondent for washington times and the congressional correspondent for "the washington post", "what government is for? washington will have to concentrate on the essentials. first is preserving the peace. the u.s. has been the guarantor of peace for the world for a better part of a century, and the world is better off. freer, more peaceful, and more prosperous. politicians insist that, because
the u.s. budget is strange, we cannot possibly keep troops in germany or korea or afghanistan, we do not have much sympathy -- next is lee from baton rouge. good morning. caller: i have then listening to this and i cannot believe what i am hearing, that nobody, i mean nobody, has ever said that they would like to see him meet with our god and confess all of his crimes or whatever and get some spiritual guidance that we have lost in this country. and it's terrible. i cannot believe what i'm
hearing, that nobody has mentioned this. and you can tell where our country is going by the way these people are answering this question. and where they've gone, i don't know, but that's my thought. and i hope somebody else might think the same way i am. host: one final tweet from max ryan. "the president should be with dennis kucinich." thanks for your calls. our thanks to the viewer on suggested the question, and charlie cook. we will take that question in the days and weeks ahead. congress is back to work this week. the leading topic is the congressional resolution, the
cr, and whether or not that will keep the government running beyond march 4. the headline in "the washington post" is that both sides appear to be averting a government shutdown but there is still talk of the possibility if an agreement is not reached by the end of this week. that will be our topic in our sunday roundtable. later in the program, congressman chris van hollen joining us at 10:00 a.m. on "newsmakers". first, a look at other topics and guest making up the sunday morning programs. >> beginning at noon eastern time on c-span radio, topics include funding the federal government, as congress returns this week, and state budget shortfalls. also the unrest in the middle east. "meet the press" begins at noon. david gregory welcomes the ranking republican member, senator john mccain.
wisconsin republican governor scott walker and the afl-cio president and mississippi republican governor haley barbour. at 1:00 p.m., it is abc's this week. the report live from aaa on the uprisings there and elsewhere in the region. in washington, the white house correspondent has a round table with republican governors general of arizona and mickey haley of south carolina and democratic governors deval patrick and the democratic governor of colorado. fox news sunday is at 2:00 p.m.. chris wallace in wellcome's and mitch daniels and mike huckabee, the former republican governor of arkansas. at 3:00 p.m., it is cnn's state of the union. they talk with the republican senator john mccain, joe lieberman, and kent conrad. then connecticut democratic governor ann malloy and florida republican governor rick scott.
at 4:00 p.m., it is a face the nation. but she for talks with the new jersey republican governor -- bob schaeffer talks with chris christie. the re-airs begin at noon eastern with "meet the press", abc's this week, 2:00 p.m., fox news sunday, 3:00 p.m., cnn's state of the union and then face the nation. listen to them on c-span radio on and 90.1. on xm satellite radio channel 132. or go online to cspanradio.org. >> i think our system of government is breaking down. i think the system of checks and balances we have in our system are not operating properly. >> winslow wheeler heads the strauss military reform project.
false -- also written two essays. >> congress has three essential powers -- the power to go to war, the power of the purse, and the power to investigate. the first two powers to go to war and of the purse are meaningless if congress does not exercise the power to investigate and it is not doing that. >> see the rest of the interview tonight on c-span's "q&a". with congress in recess and a march 4 deadline for funding the federal government, with house members said about h.r. 1. with 162 amendments. the entire debate is online at c-span's congressional chronicle at c- span.org/congress. "washington journal" continues to. host: our send it roundtable.
we want to welcome felicia sonmez. welcome. and kara rowland of "the washington times." the president is sitting out the budget brawl. his been largely absent. why? guest: he released his three- point trillion dollar budget for next year. the administration has spent a lot of -- focused on the spending freeze next year. as far as the argument about the shutdown and continuing resolutions this year, we have not seen much from them. they put out of ego threat against the house republican bill to cut $61 billion, but it was a vague. they did not get into specifics about what they would like to see. there were general and said, if it threatens national security, he will veto it. it was interesting to begin
negotiations with a veto threat. what do you guys want in cuts? he was careful not to get in the weeds there. host: for the short-term, there is agreement to get the government going through march 18. guest: up until then, no one knew if the government was going to shut down or not. i think the threat of that is receiving and that is due to the senate democrats' response to the house republican plan released on friday. it would keep the government funded for two weeks and it would cut the $4 billion over that period of time. at first, the senate democrats that holds the majority did not like that plan. they did not like to see any cuts at all and rejected it. as it turns out, those cuts that were proposed by house republicans are cuts that were included in president obama's
budget request for 2012. because of that, senate democrats are pretty much on board. that looks like for the next week or so, at their what -- the threat of a shutdown seems unlikely. host: you posted the story about a potential showdown between harry reid and john boehner. in a piece yesterday, mitch mcconnell said, the senate is irrelevant. why? guest: senate democrats do not have the power to block or change the house bill as it is right now. if they wanted to add changes or decrease the number of spending cuts, they do not have the number of people to be able to do that. and so it looks like right now that the bill that has just been introduced on the house republican side will be the one that goes ford. they are planning to vote on that this tuesday. then it will head back over -- host: newt gingrich argues that the 1995 shutdown helped
america and the gop. the facts are the opposite from the mainstream media. the shutdown it did produce some short-term pain. it did set the stage for a budget deal in 1995 that led to the largest drop in federal discretionary spending since 1969. guest: he has a point. despite the fact that the shutdown is not very popular, it did achieve an end, which was cutting more money. let's like this week as well, despite the fear on both sides of a shutdown, it did end up exceeding $4 billion in cuts. there is a point to that. the fact that it got to th pointe point that they are talkg about shut down is something that the public will not respond well to. host: gingrich could
announce he is running for president. guest: i have read conflicting reports that he will announce this week or next. it is pretty much in flux. you have seen at the senator from south dakota deciding not to run. so i don't know. host: the other story that is getting attention from "the new york times", how budget battles go without earmarks. congress remains in a disagreement over spending, but one thing that has got away are the earmarks, which is extraordinary. guest: i would say it is. in the house republican plan released on friday, a lot of the cuts, $2.70 billion would be earmarks that would be eliminated. these are special pet projects proposed by one lawmaker in a special sense. that in itself is something that is pretty interesting for
congress. guest: the president did get some flak. omnibus bills.of mrs. bil that was one of the things he regretted he had to do. there was some pressure with it, why don't you back that up with a veto threat? he said, i will. if both parties have come around and senate democrats were the ones, that was the big question. ok, are they going to meet what everybody else is doing? they can round. let's remember. a lot of them are saying, we will revisit this later. we will do this for now, but it is less than 1% of the entire budget. it still is absolutely an extraordinary achievement. host: "newsweek" magazine -- who ruled america? retired people. power is the ability to get what
you want. aarp runs the government budgetary process, not presidents or congressional leaders. no one wants to strip the seniors of essential benefits, but social security and medicare have become for many relatively healthy and economically secure americans middle-class welfare. it is the issue of the entitlements -- 2/3 of the budget coming from entitlements and defense spending. that seems to be the area that nobody wants to touch, especially entitlement programs. guest: there was a lot of criticism when the president unveiled his budget last week. hands off does not begin to tackle entitlements. a lot of people are saying, that is political. he is using a strategy. he has his own reelection. this is a way to a republicans who have said that our plan will tackle entitlements. when they propose their budget,
it will pretty much, that is going to be the one that everyone will talk about. the president's is dead on arrival. it is supposed to begin the debate. it left it out. guest: i agree. the house republicans said earlier this month that that will be part of their budget proposal for the next fiscal year when they release that in april. so it will definitely set the stage for a showdown, because the larger fact is that the president's deficit commission it -- this was one of the things they advised him to tackle. one of the main points of criticism is that this is something that he has punted on so by house republicans being able to take initiative on this, they are saying, we are trying to tackle the problem. the president has not let on this. -- led on this. it has always been a tricky political situation. voters are worried that anyone
that is trying to tackle entitlement reform that their benefits will be on the line. report -- house republicans will have to tread very carefully. host: our phone lines are open. 202-737-0001 our line for republicans and 202-737-0002 for democrats. if you are an independent the number to call is 202-628-0205. you can also send us an email -- email@example.com. do you tweet? guest: yes, i absolutely tweet. as far as your job goes, it really helps. before i was going to google news. people will break news via twitter before the right an article. guest: calls and calls to them were not successful and did not
work. committee put the tweet out, it is a public forum and they got right back to me. host: let's show you what the president said yesterday in his weekly address, setting the stage for congress and the white house, trying to work some sort of agreement to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government running . here is the president yesterday in the weekly address. >> i am willing to consider any serious ideas to help us reduce the deficit, no matter what party is proposing them. instead of cutting investments in education and innovation, we need to out-compete the rest of the world. we need a balanced approach to deficit reduction. we need to be willing to sacrifice, but we cannot sacrifice our future. next week, congress will focus on a short-term budget. for the sake of our people and our economy, we cannot allow or gridlock to prevail. both democratic and republican
leaders in the house and senate have said they believed it is important to keep the government running while we work together on a plan to reduce our long- term deficit. given that, i urge and expect them to find common ground so we can accelerate and not impede economic growth. it will not be easy. there will be plenty of debate and disagreement, and n either party will get everything at once. both sides will have to compromise. that is what it will take to do what is right. i look forward to working with members of both parties to produce a responsible budget that cuts what we cannot afford, sharpen america's competitive edge in the world, and helps us win the future. . .
they certainly seem, there is some observation that going rich kind of relished the idea of a shutdown. some folks were saying that. and that's certainly not true of speaker boehner. he seems to be doing everything he can not avoid it. host: mary is joining us from oklahoma. welcome. caller: good morning. i think we need to step outside the rut here to solve the problem of the economy. the workers need cash flow and according to the school of
finance, cash flow is the life blood of any economy. and to cut it down is the wrong step. the federal reserve's been printing currency now at top speed for many years, and it's been wasted. i think that the congress needs to decide first and foremost that they're going to declare that the minimum wage should immediately rise to $60 an hour and let the fed keep printing their questionably worthless money and funnel it through the i.r.s. computers into the hands of the small business people to subsidize a wage increase. and i think that this is the primary thing that needs to be done. we also of course need to stop the war machine, and i think on
a temporary basis that we should become slightly more isolation yigses and strengthen our own economy and that would restore us to a position of being a beacon to the rest of the world and let all of everyone's economies become strengthened. host: i thank you for the call. there's also an editorial this morning about what is the role of government. so i'm going to take your point and ask both of your guests that the snerpiece of this debate is what should the role be of the federal government? what's the outcome? guest: it's an interesting fight that you're seeing playing out in the the house where you've got 87 new republican members and a lot of them have been pushing for a much more limited role of government. but you've seen on some of the amendments there were about 103
votes on the bill and tons of amendments were thrown out there and the speaker opened up the process to let the house work its will and what ended up happening, and you got a very good sense of where lawmakers are right now in terms of what government's role should be. the house republican freshmen did push for an extra couple, millions of dollars more for this continuing resolution to fund the government but on the other hand there was an additional 22 billion on top of that funding resolution, and surprising number of those republican freshmen voted against that. so i think it's, you're still seeing lawmakers trying to find their way forward but that large freshman class definitely is pushing things towards the direction of less government. guest: i just think it's fascinating as someone who remembers studying political science in a class, it's no longer an abstract conversation. we're seeing for the first time at least so out front these
debates take shape and take place. i mean, we're going to have serious, serious conversations about the role and the size of the federal government unlike anything that we've ever seen. and again, it's kind of like what's going on at the state level. everybody is facing these shortfalls but to look at their party and how the philosophy shapes, what am i going to do? am i going to do things? the president is calling for investment in some areas or are we going to slash like some folks have said? so as a student of political science i think it's great. host: let me read one sentence. guest: absolutely.
you're seeing that, the whole bigger argument over the role of government playing out on the macro scale in wisconsin. and, just some pretty surprising effect there. i think at the national governors meeting, what's happening here you definitely saw governors trying to work out a way forward on that. and i think it's always been a group that has tried to not be partisan and not get consumed by a lot of the battles taking place here in d.c. so it's interesting to see what's happening in states and wisconsin is playing out here in d.c. at their annual meeting. host: the republican response to the president's weekly address is senator rob portman who served in the bush administration, is the director of budget and management. >> instead of making the tough choices all americans know are necessary to get our fiscal house in order and strengthen our economy, the president's
budget locks in the higher levels of spending over the past two years and doubles the national debt. as the democrat cochairman said, it goes nowhere near where they'll have to go to address our fiscal problems. having chosen to duck the tough choice force the coming year and beyond, the democrats and president are now rejecting any spending congress can control in the current budget year, despite the fact that this year's $1.6 trillion deficit is at record levels and over the past two years under democrat leadership this type of spending has increased 24% and over 08% if you include the -- 80% if you include the stimulus. our goals is to make sensible reductions and create better environment for job growth not to shut down the government. getting our debt and deficit under control is the single most important stetch we can
take. -- step we can take. host: let me begin with the point about where do you begin the budget cut. his point was we want to bring it back to 2007 levels. the president is saying let's bring it back to 2010 levels. and we've seen the debt increase to now $1.5 trillion this year and approaching $15 trillion by the end of this fiscal year. guest: the thing that the administration is very concerned about, at least that they've said and has been echoed is cutting too much too soon is going to threaten the recovery. and describing these, the 61 billion that house republicans want to cut as being potentially very harmful on that level. but at the same time, what the president has really done is proposed this five-year nondefense discretionary spending freeze on which they've actually advisers say this is essentially a cut. but the one thing to keep in mind when talking about the president's budget, though, is
that it's based on a number of economic assumptions about the growth and gdp and economy over the next several years that a lot of independent economists say are pretty rosey. so the big thing to look for is when the congressional score keepers and the few several weeks do their own analysis of the president's budget, that could be the thing that puts the nail in the coffin of that budget if they just throw out and come with these less rosy assumptions and then all the 1.1 shaving off the deficit that the president says his budget entails will completely vanish. host: last week you pointed out 61 billion. that's what the republicans want cut from the budget this year? guest: correct. that's something important to keep in mind and not conflate the debate right now over the government shutdown and the so-called continuing resolution or turns on cuts to this year's spending. and of course congress didn't even pass a budget for this year. and the president's budget like
i said earlier the administration's been focused on the 2012 fiscal year fight. but that is correct. house republicans passed that bill, $61 billion in cuts from this year. it remains to be seen. it doesn't look like judging what senate democrats have said, and the president issued a veto threat, they're going to get that. but the bigger thing is what kind of fight obviously democrats have said ok the short term, there might be some fight over time. but how, where is the eventual number going to be for the longer term cr. host: and this is from john. guest: that's basically the argument that the house republicans are making. on the point, that number basically is a pro-rated number from the $61 billion that would have been enacted over seven months in the current fiscal year funding plan.
but i think the argument that's playing out is essentially, will cuts of this magnitude have a good effect on the economy or not. democrats are saying no. they're saying that the economy is still fragile and we need to be investing as much as we can right now in things like infrastructure. and they point to things like the report that came out by a goldman sachs analyst this week showing that if the $61 billion plan does go through that could result in about two percentage points worth of damage to the gdp growth. over the next -- over the next several quarters. and they point to others that say that 800 jobs will be lost if this plan goes into action. but house republicans counter that ifing has been working so well, why isn't the economy working as well as the white house said it would be. genuine opinion difference on that. host: let me show you this
headline from the financial times and get your reaction. guest: why it took so long and why when we spoke, a lot of folks poipt out he never even mentioned gadaffi by name when he did come out and give that statement on wednesday. but i think now there's been this realization after friday when the ferry and then the chartrd aircraft with all the american diplomats and then citizens, i believe, everybody who wanted out getting out, you immediately at that, the press briefing was actually delayed until those folks could leave. and it was just like a switch was flipped. and the rhetoric was just much tougher, carny saying he was
zero legitimacy, saying we're pursuing unilateral sanctions, multilateral sanctions, using the full force of our intelligence. and then you had the president like you mentioned yesterday it came in the form of a readout of the call he had with german chancellor saying khadaffi must step down now. so just completely back and forth. and the reason for that was the white house was concerned that the safety of those american citizens before they got out depending on what the president said, their safety could be jeopardized. and we all remember the scene, the iran hoffsage situation and that's something he wanted to avoid. and he said he was willing to take a few days of consternation in the press to make sure those folks were out. and then it was a like a switch was flipped. host: in the "weekly standard."
caller: hi. thanks for taking my call. host: certainly. caller: i've been over here 15 years, i was a teacher in california for many years, came over here two kids in college, no hope of any decent pension over in the states, so i came over here and started teaching and retired here. i just wanted to say that two things. the u.n. veto was the first time that i noticed any of my neighbors or friends even noticing a u.s. veto in the u.n. security council. and that was with -- and nobody was mad about it. everybody took it to be very hopeful in that it was very noticeable. that his words were used. i don't know if you got that in the press over there but it was his words that were used in the draft of this amendment. and still, he vetoed it. but the idea that with all
these revolutions in north africa, it's going to be very difficult for america to take that unilateral stance against israel for -- and all the -- we get a selection of press over here. we get aljazeera and bbc and russia tv and sky. so, and there was a consensus of opinion even mostly americans interviewed for this that this was a domestic decision on obama's part that, as your guests have said, this was a congressional conversation and a reelection one. and in the states you couldn't possibly not veto this and get away with it. so to the people over here, it was a question of how noticeable is this? and there's no way that that's going to be -- go unnoticed any more, the very, very staunch zionist backing of america.
especially considering it was against what obama had said he was in favor of, especially using his own words. that's the first point. second thing, we're not paying too much attention or worried too much about obama not stepping in, though hillary does wave her finger a lot. but because cameron over here is taking -- i don't know if you've noticed but he for example just is doing a lot of walk about and he just took an enormous trade mission over to kuwait to sell them more arms, and over here the guns that are being used in libya are recently sold to him in 2003 by blare -- blair. so over here everybody is pretty annoyed with cameron saying he's all against pro-democracy and everything and -- but against violence when even on his recent walk
about he's taking this troop of arms dealers. host: i'll stop you there. more of a comment rather than a question but do you want to respond? guest: i believe the caller was referencing the u.s.'s exercise of its veto power on a u.n. resolution that would have condemned certain israeli settlements as illegal. i don't want to tread too far. i'm pretty sure that's what the caller was mentioning. and that has put the administration in a tough position in the past where they have criticized those settlements as possibly undermining the peace process. but at the same time, you know, as i believe the caller also alluded there's a lot of support israel on both sides of capitol hill and so that's always something you've got to tread very carefully on. so i do believe that the u.s., our u.n. folks up in new york believe this particular resolution was too strong. i want to say that it would have declared those settlements
ill legal. and even for us that was going too far. host: rahm emanuel is now the mayor elect of chicago. this is the headline today from the chicago tribune. and he will inherit potentially a $600 million up to $1 billion budget shortfall. guest: absolutely. it's hard to find a locality that doesn't have some kind of a budget shortfall. and what's going to be interesting is what his approach is going to be. again, if you just look across the country, you've got all kinds of folks doing different things. we've got scott walker in wisconsin. speaking of rahm emanual yull, never let a crisis go to waste. he's not only going for more contributions but also going after collective bargaining rights. then you've got democrats like cuomo in new york who is going after his budget shortfall and promised not to raise taxes. and then jerry brown in
california wants to do it through a mix of tax increases and cuts too. and republicans like chris christy who want to do it through all cuts. so i think it's fascinating to watch how all of these states are choosing to tackle these problems. they've all got them. >> governor christy, the subject of this piece. guest: his profile has been heightened to the point where this past weekend at, when all the governors are in town here, you saw the boards, o'malley, the governor of maryland taking aim at christy. i forget the exact phrase he said but the biggest comedy routine or something along those lines that republicans have. i mean, he's definitely becoming someone that is emblem atic of in a similar way to scott walker, these drastic cuts and setting himself up in a way to these unions.
he keeps tamping down on the speculation that he is pursuing a national bid. doesn't look very likely that he would run in 2012 but you could see him doing something down the line. host: next, charles from maryland. good morning to you. republican line. caller: yeah. the congress and senate want to vote on cuts for old people. how come they don't want to cut their own salaries? most of their constituents make between $30,000 and $50,000 a year. how come they don't cut their own salaries down so they understand what people are going through? it seems to me that if they cut a lot of their perks out, cut their salary down, it would help the budget an awful lot. host: and some of those members are sleeping in their congressional offices. guest: absolutely. you've seen this influx of new
members who say they're so serious about cutting back that they are actually camping out in their offices, and using the full range of amenities that are in there. that's taking it to a level. but on the other hand you could argue that by them living in their offices they're not saving the government any money by doing that. but it is sort of a symbolic step for the lawmakers to say that, hey, we are serious about cutting government spending. as for them cutting their salaries, something that often comes up, understandably among lawmakers here, not a very popular idea, but one that probably will come up again over the course of this. host: tom is joining us from new york democrat's line. good morning. caller: i have a couple comments and a question. i'm 62 years old.
i've never seen such an attack on the middle class my entire life. it's very disheartening. and turning workers against each other. the slightly higher paid union workers getting the rest of the people suffering for years to show envy toward them. and now you see people attacking social security and seniors and you know, the richer, the richest they've ever been, they pay the lowest taxes in 75 years with the exception of maybe two years. and yet you cannot step on the middle class and the poor and in this country, right now, apparently tea partiers. as far as spending goes, quick comment and then a question. spending is needed now. economists know this. there's no debate. what got us out of the depression, whether you give us credit for world war ii or new deal or combination of both was massive spending. but we're not going to recover if we have another recession, which is what we're headed for.
look at the gdp. people talk about spending allegedly reducing the growth. and it did. cuts in spending i mean. host: do you think in today's political environment if the president put forth a stimulus plan that was several billion dollars congress would go along, democrats or republicans? guest: they're clueless on this. the real problem is not the spending. it's the recession. and we just barely got out of a depression that was pending. but could i make one -- my main comment. by the way, pentagon spending is the biggest portion of the budget that's not dedicated. and that is almost always a sacred part you can't touch. it's -- and obama proposed $78 billion in cuts over ten years so that's nothing. that's off the table almost. and raising taxs. that seems to be off the table. but my question is regarding social security. the two reporters on your show
keep repeating this thing that i keep hearing and it's not true, that first of all, if you look at a budget pie yes social security and medicare account for the biggest single percentage but that's money already collected. the budget, the social security does not add to the debt or the deficit. that's a fact. it by law cannot add to the debt or the deficit if you read the social security law. it cannot take money out of general tax revenues to support it. it does have treasury bonds that have been placed to replace the surplus because the money has to go somewhere. the government buys the or takes the money that's the surplus of social security and gives treasury bonds an exchange for that. and yes yearly it has been spending more than it's been taking in. host: let me read to you what robert samuelson wrote.
guest: that's political spin. the medicaid possibly adds to the debt. the medicare i believe and certainly not the social security because they're in surplus for another -- well, the medicare is in surplus for 10 years. the social security for 25 more years. they do not add to the debt. they are spending, yes. but it's spending that's been collected. host: i'm going to stop you there because i want to get a response. let's take social security off the table. what about these two other entitlement programs? guest: those seem to be the two. taking social security tauf table is what the president and democrats have said. they kind of have made the points the caller has made. i'm not an economist. whether as far as the nitty-gritty goes or whether that's true about adding to the deficit. but i think what's clear and particularly with those two
other entitlement programs you mentioned there are long term problems but as we touched on before, unlike his bipartisan deficit commission, the president and his budget hasn't really proposed anything to tackle that, just saying we need to have a bipartisan conversation. so what exactly we'll see, i mean, the house republicans again have said that they're going to tackle it. and of course house budget chairman paul ryan has his road map plan which does tackle timets but he has said that any plan that he does come forth with will have to get the majority support of the caucus. so we're probably not going to see anything that extreme, if you will. but that's what's going to be dominating the conversation. and a lot of folks have been out there saying whatever it is, let's not even deal with social security. host: mary has this point.
union activists there saying they want to see this spread to other states around the country. guest: i think that one of the controversial aspects of the organizing there was that the organizing for america, which is president obama's campaign arm, had actually been reported to have been involved in that and that sort of drew attention to what is the white house's role in this and is the president sort of putting himself against these republican governors. i think one interesting ramification for this in the campaign going forward is that you'll have a lot of activists on the left who were not really mobilized before and these issues weren't really on the table before, they're going to be paying a lot of attention going into the 2012 cycle and this could be something similar to some of the thing that is you're seeing here in congress. some of the bills focusing on defunding planned parenthood or
some of the other measures targeting federal funding of abortion. a lot of those issues just hadn't really been on the radar for a while and now you're seing that activists on the left getting energized. and even democrats congressional campaign arm is running calls i believe in some districts where there are house republicans who voted in favor of those measures. so i think all of this tied together just on the whole sort of energized the left in the way that they hadn't been the past couple of months. host: in a briefing on wednesday. rush limbaugh on friday aired the comments. but for now kind of side stepping that. guest: what carny said in response is look he has plenty of ways he can stand with workers and the president did weigh in in an interview with a
wisconsin tv station where he described governor walker's assault on unions. then you saw, it's not back tracking but distancing from the white house's standpoint of their involvement baw his wading in attracted a lot of criticisms. don't mettle in the states and also led some folks to say these weren't organic, that they were being engineered by ofa. so once he weighs in, that just elevates it even more so to where it was. and you would see folks, pelosi, john boehner, people weighing in everywere on what's going on. and i think a lot of that was driven by if the and his comments. host: o.f.a., referring to organizing for america. steve joining us from the independent line. caller: i'm back on social security. i'm quite a ways from collecting it.
but i'm worried that the proposal of the budget, the deficit commission would kind of turn it into a ponzi scheme. a lot more people are going to die between 67 and 70 years of age. and it would also create kind of a pension gap. you retire, your private pension collects somewhere between 60 and 65. but you wouldn't get your full potential retirement income until you're about 70. as an alternative proposition, i would suggest that they get rid of the cap on the social security taxes. you know, every year come early mid november i hit the ceiling where the additional income isn't taken out any more in taxes. so let's get rid of the ceiling. and, quite frankly, the democrats would probably love it because it's higher taxes on the more wealthy people. host: how old are you? caller: i'm 53.
host: are you willing to retire at 70 and pay more for the next several years into social security? caller: i personally have no plans to retire. i love my job. but it's just, there's going to be a lot of people who have contributed all their lives and they'll get nothing because they die first. and that's not fair. host: thank you. guest: i think that's part of the reason why this is such a difficult issue to tackle is that raising the retirement age is not a very popular idea among voters out there. even although advocates of that will say it's a necessary step and will say we're broke. how do you convince voters to go along with that? is very problematic. host: another point from one of our viewers.
guest: it's not a new talking point. it's something that we've been hearing for a long time. i mean, look, their argument again, is as felicia enumerated earlier, if spending we're going to bring about prosperity we should be even just completely in a different position than we find ourselves now. i mean, you know, there's a lot that goes into that. but i think it's even more also the one factor being the regulations and the size of government overall. obviously spending goes into that. but just the uncertainty, too. i think there's a little bit more to that. but -- and i think they have been challenged on the i. democrats certainly have. as another caller was saying earlier, some folks and economists are saying we do need to spend now in the short term. host: both share something in common. you both write for d.c. newspapers. you tweet, you blog, you also provide video descriptions of the stories that you cover and
post them on the web sites. explain a typical day. guest: typical day. well, i guess this is a good opportunity to introdouse our new congress blog. it's called two chambers and started on thushes. it's, we're covering both ends of the cap toll both chambers. and a typical day is when congress is in session, i'll be running around the capitol building from the senate side to the house side back and forth interviewing members, going to the leadership press briefings. and watching what's happening on the floor getting a sense of what's happening and what the pulse is. and when they're not in session, like they were this previous week, it's a lot of time on the phone or e mailing with people to get a sense of where legislation is moving. and, you know, getting out as much as i can to talk to people to see what they think about what congress is doirning. it ended up being last saturday
there were a lot, it, there were not a lot of people around but there were a lot of hours spent at the capitol. there was one final vote on the house passed spending bill. that ended up being at 4:30 in the morning and there was a small contingent of us that ended up staying because we did not want to mizz that final vote. that was a very interesting week because you saw there were four days of votes on amendments to that spending bill. and the vast majority of members were there for all those votes. but there were a handle of them not there. and for various reasons, they had to go out of town for a funeral or wedding or things like that. but their overall percentage of votes that they've missed now is something like 40% just from having missed those couple of days of votes. so in a nutshell there's not really any typical day on the hill but some of them last until the next day. host: and you're in your
spacious office. guest: oh, yeah. host: tongue in cheek. but your stories are on all platforms. guest: it's really fun but it's also tough being a reporter now just in the sense of all the multitasking and tweeting, blogging, you know doing a web story then building on it for the paper or just -- but on the flip side it's nice because there are now vehicles by, for when you get something it's like, this doesn't really warrant a story but it's interesting. i can do a few graffs on it and now people and readers can see that and you don't have to worry about whether it's going to get in the paper. and it can be tough. there's no typical day. a week like this where there's a fast-moving situation, with libya and before that egypt. because every once in a while when there's not much news, you kind of feel like ground hog day. it's kind of the same thing one day after another. but when the actual facts change so quickly it really is fascinating to be at the zphert
of it all. host: another headline. the tea party patriots meeting in arizona. tea party group issuing a warning to the republican party call for deeper budget cuts or else. one of the speakers, former republican governor of minnesota and likely g.o.p. presidential candidate. tonight on c-span's road to the white house, our interview with former arkansas governor. that airs at 6:30 and 9:30 eastern and pacific time. pete from robinson, texas. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, appreciate you taking my call. i have a phd in chemistry, started my own business in 1969 when i put up my first production plant. in 1999 i turned it over to my two sons. we had four different companies of over 700-something employees. we have half the companies now and half the workers. why? because of our federal government. now, what i want to ask you
right off is that you got this corrupt big media talking about the republican slash 61 billion out of the budget. hell, girls, the federal government budget loses 60 billion out of medicare every year in fraudulent payments. so that's not too big of a number. is it? now, the other thing is that we don't plan to hire any more until we get this government off our back. and i'm not the only one. if you look at nfib, only 13% of the small businesses plan to hire. and i wonder why. well, because again, overregulation. now, i want to ask you this one question. how many jobs do you think just three agencies in the last two years have killed? the bureau of land management where they are confiscating land out west, the illegal moratorium out in the gulf, and of course those of us that
furnish all of the fuel, oil, and everything else you need to get around to light your homes and whatever. host: if you have the answer. how would you answer that? caller: how would i answer the number of jobs? host: yes. caller: well, we did a little calculation and we figured somewhere around 772,000 jobs. because all you've got to do is look at the gulf moratorium and read your own papers, and you'll find out how many people have, were laid off. they had no issueance of permits for deep water. they went into the shallow water. they were anywhere from 14 to 16 permits issued every month. since obama got in there and fouled it all up there's only about 1 to 2 per month. so you think about it. so what we're dealing with is an overreaching, overtaxing, getting in our face federal government, running this
country down into the ground. and so until the american people have actually stood up and said we've had enough, we're going to have an unemployment rate of the u-6 with about 16 to 17% for the foreseeable future. host: let me ask you one question. do you have faith in the republican party in speaker john boehner and senate mitch mcconnell to make the cuts that would satisfy you? guest: of course they're coming around. but let me ask you something. right now, the only individuals that have voted to keep this government running for the next until september 30th to the end of the fiscal year is the republican house of representatives. now we're going to find out whether the democrats senate and the democrat president can keep this government running. host: thank you. guest: well, going back to the
interesting point that the caller made on regulation. you know, we've been focusing so much on spending and on the role of government and that way, but actually on the issue of regulation that's another debates that's been happening on capitol hill recently. darrell issa, the republican congressman from california he's the new chairman of the house oversight and government reform committee. he's been holding hearings to discuss ways that congress can cut down on the number of federal regulations out there. and that's another way that house republicans say that they'll be able to spur job creation. they've had a couple hearings on that and the house passed a measure last week or two weeks ago that would call on 13 or so committees to take a look at regulations and try to find out one that is are duplicating each other or ones that are harmful to job growth. so i think that over the next couple months we'll see that play out a little more. but it's an interesting approach on both cutting the spending and cutting
regulations has something that house republicans are looking at . host: give you a moment to think about this question. in the first hour we asked if the president could meet with one person who advise him, who would that person be. martha is joining us from north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. this is martha. i'm going to make two points. to the members living in the office. the senators i saw on a program like 117,000 a year. and if they can't afford to live in their offices, how do they think that the american public out here having to live on social security or unemployment can live? and if the american people were homeless trying to live in public buildings would be thrown out as vague rants. why are they not being thrown out? guest: that's a good point. i suppose because it's their
offices that they are technically allowed to stay there. they can say they're working perhaps. i don't know, maybe you have a better idea on that than i do. host: bill is joining us from oklahoma city. good morning. caller: yes. why do they give congress all? host: you mean this last week? caller: yes . host: they were off for president's day week but they're back tomorrow. caller: why don't they retire some of them old farts in there and get some young blood in there that's college educated instead of them old farts that's been if there forever that's soaking up the seat. host: we'll stop you there. but we do have new blood in congress. do we not? guest: absolutely. on the house side especially, 87 new republican freshmen, a
handful of democratic freshman. host: and yet the leadership remains the same from the last congress. guest: and that's an interesting point. the house democrats despite suffering this massive loss kept their same leadership team intact and seaveed lot of criticism about that. so that's -- yeah, thrp a couple of weeks when i think house democrats were sort of trying to find their way and they had a lot of closed-door meetings to try to convince the leadership was trying to convince members of the caucus that this was the right step to do and the former house speaker nancy pelosi was, some of the members challenged her actually and heath shuler from north carolina was running against her. he got a fair amount of votes but not enough to unseat her. and yeah, it's interesting that the same leadership team is intact. host: so here's your chance.
one person for the president to meet with. guest: would the meeting be open to the press? host: i hope so. guest: because if it would be open to the press i do think, although chris christy is in town and they're having a dinner and then a bipartisan meeting on monday. but just to see the two of them having a discussion i think would be fun. host: i would have to say scott walker just because he is the man in the news right now host: and walk us through the president's week ahead. he's here. guest: it is going to be a big week. he's meeting with u.n. secretary general who is going to be in town to meet with him at the white house and that's to discuss the ongoing response to the situation in libya and we should add if we haven't already that the u.n. security council did come together yesterday and pass sanctions. but there's also discussion should we have military action? what about a no fly zone. then he is have a bipartisan meeting of governors. he already met with the democratic governors.
he is having them tonight for a dinner and tomorrow for a meeting. then thursday there's going to be a meeting with the president of mexico. so i'll sure they're going to talk about border violence and some of the issues there. and then on friday he's going to be going to miami for a senatorial democratic fund raiser. host: unless there's a government shutdown. guest: i have a feeling the president would be deemed essential nernl. host: week ahead in congress? guest: the house is back tomorrow and the senate is back on tuesday after their work period. not vacation technically. and the house is going to be voting on tuesday on this short-term two-week funding measure. that will send it over to the senate. and friday is the deadline that they need to come to some kind of agreement. otherwise, thingless shut down. host: thank you both for being with us.
appreciate it. we're going to take a short break and when we come back we'll turn our attention to the issue of congressional redistricting now that the sensuss figures are in. and the former editor at large now with csis on the situation with libya and his past conversations with lybian leader mo mar gaddafi. but first, a look at some of the events as viewed by some of the cartoonists from around the country.
"washington journal" continues. host: joining us from new york, the senior counsel at the brennan center. appreciate your time. guest: thank you so much for having me. host: our focus is redistricting. and let me put on the table a snapshot of what we're looking at in terms of the latest census information and what it means for states. first, those expected to gain seats in the u.s. house of representatives include arizona, which will gain one seat, florida will gain one, georgia gaining an additional seat in the house. nevada gaining one seat, south carolina gaining one seat, texas gaining four seats, utah and washington state each gaining one seat respectively. california will stay the same. and those states expected to lose seats in 2012 include the following. illinois, iowa, louisiana, massachusetts, michigan,
minnesota, new jersey, new york, ohio, an pennsylvania. all of those losing one seat except ohio which is expected to lose two congressional seats. again, as a result of the census information and redistricting. so walk us through the process. what happens next? guest: sure. well, it's important to remember that everyone in america lives in districts. we live in congressional direction, we live in state legislative districts. some people live in actually smaller districts. for example, districts for city coinl or districts for school board or county commishers. after the census gives the apportionment counts to the president and the president then gives those numbers to the house and the number of congressional seats that each state is going to get gets established, the census then turns the data to the states and the states view that data to do their own congressional and legislative redistricting. host: and each state doing it somewhat differently. iowa for example has its own commission taking the politics
out of the process. other states become far more political. correct? guest: will, what's correct, sir, is that every state has its own redistricting process. and in some states, the process is different depending upon what districts we're talking about. are we talking about state assembly or senate districts or are we talking about congressional districts? and it is in fact if case that most states have the state legislatures drawing their own lines. but some states use the assistance of commissions. iowa uses what i would call an advisory commission, which means that someone other than the legislature prepares the map but the legislature ultimately has to vote on them. some states use what we call a backup commission, which means that whoever is drawing the lines aren't able to meet the relevant deadlines. this other commission comes into help. some states use what we call politician commissions. and a politician commission is a small body of people that can actually draw the map and implement the map but may
include state legislatures that may or may not be ultimately running in the districts that they draw. and then some states use what we call citizens commissions, where the people on the commission are not running for office, there are certain rules trying to establish a little bit of a gap between the direct interest in running. and in those instances a lot of people call those independent commissions. host: the brennan center has put together a report which you're a contributor for. one of the questions, how should the lines be drawn? guest: well, districting is about values. there are certain criteria used. there's federal criteria which include that of making sure that the districts are
relatively equal in population. and making sure that we are adhering to the voting rights act. and then on top of that, the states impose their own sorts of criteria or values. but because redistricting is about trade-off, every time one person decides to or the district drawers decide to elevate a certain value, another value has to change. and because it's all interrelate, you can't draw one district and n a vacuum because it affects the entire state, you can have substantive changes that's resulting from something where you decided to start. and it's for that reason that the brennan center believes that the redistricting process must be transparent. the public must know what are the guiding principles, what are the limitations on drawing district lines and being able to activity engage and participate in that process. host: act a quarter of the country viewed as solid democratic liberal state delegations including new york and massachusetts, oregon, and nume. and some of the more conservative republican
districts include texas and oklahoma, kansas, nebraska. but almost half of the country viewed as centrist state delegations. like pennsylvania, ohio, florida, arkansas, south dakota, california, and nevada. so the politician ofment state legislature, what does that tell you about the process? guest: i think there's a lot of thing that is go into the process, including the politics of the state legislature. but often it depends on who is drawing the lines. if it's done by an independent commission, then the composition of the government in that particular state is less important. if there's specific rules regarding how one draws the lines, what the state criteria are, how that state criteria interacts with federal criteria, that also has an impact. what is really important in the redistricting process is to remember that there are a lot of things at play. and there's no one factor which is going to have a dispositive impact. but because there are a lot of thingses at play, the process needs to be transparent and
people need to be aware. host: myrna perez is joining us from new york. last friday here on the "washington journal," charlie cook who writes for the washington journal talked about the politics of redistricting and what we could see in the year ahead. >> republicans scored so many huge gains in the governorships that they're going to be in a stronger position in redistricting than any time in modern times. so you've got some offsetting factors here. and then just one additional data point, that could or could not, may or may not be important. is this will be the first time that a democratic president or justice department will be in place during a redistricting since president kennedy was in office. and whether that becomes relevant or not we'll see but my hunch is that you're not going likely to see a turnover of more than 10 seats one way or the other, which obviously,
if democrats picked up ten seats there's still 15 short of a majority. host: how would you respond to charlie cook's sentiment? guest: the outcomes of what's going to happen remain to be seen. there have been a number of changes and reforms and there's a different process now. we have to remember that there is greater technology that is available to the public to participate. i mean, right now people can get electric notices of upcoming hearings of redistricting. people can join with other people via facebook, other social networking sites to talk about redistricting and what's the important value and people can draw their own map. and i think all of these many different things, and the ability for the public to participate in the process are going to produce an outcome that may surprise some or it may not. one of the thing that is really we as a country need to decide is how much of the redistricting process are we comfortable with having happen
in back rooms or in hallways versus how much do we want in open sunlight with the public there understanding exactly what is going on. and the ability for political mischief is going to depend on a number of factors. one, how transparent the process is and how accountable to the public are the line drawers going to be. where the population shifts are. what the relevant laws are, for example, if the voting rights act applies or what the particular lta have to say about how much partisan interests can play in the redistributing process. so there are a lot of factors going on. and i know that it's really popular to try and make predictions. but what i'm interested in doing is making sure that this redistricting process is one in which the public feels like they have the tools to engage, the opportunities to engage, and the opportunities to understand what redistricting means, why it matters, and how they can become a play a bigger
part of it. host: you can get more information by logging on to brennan center.org. what is the mission statement of the organization? guest: we are a nonpartisan, nonprofit law and public policy institute affiliated with n.y.u. and named after justice william brennan. we focus on issues related to democracy and justice. and we have a redistricting program that does a number of things providing technical assistance, legislative drafting assistance. and a lot of publicication, public education on the redistricting process. host: including this citizens guide to redistricting. this is what it looks like. tom joining us from texas. good morning. caller: good morning. regardless of the redistricting, it only manifests the problems that already existed that got us in our situation the way we are now. and you would have to go back to the where the beginning of
that problem started as far as the unemployment, the jobs, and up to the current redistricting. where states either lose or gain dricts. the problem started when the gap bill and the nafta were both signed over into the wto on december 8, 1995, under the clinton administration by bill clinton. the problem of that was it also went back retro to the year of 1992, and subsequently i said then to everybody which i belong to a very large union who was at that time consolidating with even another still larger union, and in the process i warned them it's going to take about ten years
if they turned everything around after once getting into it. so now i'm going to tell you that every year on top of that, since the year 2010, we're going to add another year. but that additional year every year thereafter 2010 will create an actual year and a half of detriment to the unemployment, the gross national product, as well as the treasury. . .
guest: it is for that reason that citizens must be involved in the redistricting process. we are so affected by all of the legislation enacted by representatives we sent from the district's we live in. host: let me put one example that was found on page 11 of the brenman report. this is illinois in 2002. in 2002, barack obama challenge to bobby rush, losing in the
primary but getting 30% of the vote. as a result of redistricting, his residence was redistricted out so it would restrict him from a rematch in 2000 to explain this. guest: one of the critiques is that they can use the process to target political enemies or potential political enemies. and that is, again, one of the really important reasons why the redistricting criteria needs to be very clear, why the public needs to understand what rules affect the redistricting process. the person drawing the lines need to adhere to the federal and state rules and the public needs to be provided some justification when there is actually a redistricting map on the table to be given an explanation. why does that particular district have a car out of one
block? if there -- is the reason it given the legitimate? the public has to be given the ability to hold the line drawers responsible for the decisions they are making in the process. host: bill, democrats line, from chicago. good morning . caller: i would like to say on that last caller, interesting that they see what happened with the world trade organization. you can see whether congressional people, senators and congressmen, did and how they voted if they would simply look online. what i would like to know is that when everything is redistricted, when does it take effect, and how long does it take effect? host: thanks for the call. guest: ok, that is a great question. redistricting -- some people live in small political unions
at that do not need to have redistricting. for example, some city councils are elected at large. if you live in an area that does redistricting it will happen every 10 years and it is connected to the census. after the census gives the data to the state, the data will be converted using the federal and state rules, and the input of the line drawers, into the district maps we live in. what becomes important timing- wise is what is happening in that process. states have different deadlines for doing their legislative redistricting. most states will do their redistricting between 2011 and 2012. some have deadlines in 2013. some states, the process is going to be prolonged because of legal challenges to various lines. then it is important to remember that some states have no laws prohibiting redistricting from occurring
more than every 10 years. host: our next call is scott, independent line. caller: how is the 2030 report issued in september, 2008, margaret beckett, for the stock and the reporturrh, from the world bank, with fragile state securing development plays into the redistricting, considering that they said that everything under the 40th parallel will be considered second world because of the climate by the year 2013. host: you lost me on the first part. what is your source? caller: the 2030 report, issued out of washington. margaret beckett presented on bbc tv. basically, the ocean and floors
are sinking, causing the magma push. that is why volcano activity is up 300%. host: i am not sure it is relevant to this conversation, myrna perez? guest: the only thing i would say is that redistricting needs to occur in america because population shifts, and families grow, people die and move. we want to make sure that there are roughly the same number of people and all of the districts that we draw. and it is true that the property and geography and other things like that affect the shapes of districts. the really important thing to remember when doing all of this is that there are federal and state rules limiting and guiding those in drawing district lines, and the public needs to be involved in the process. host: is the politicization of the justice department going to
intimidate those legislatures involved in the process? guest: i think the department of justice has a large role to play because of the voting rights act. section 5 is the pre-clearance division, which is a very limited and a tailored protection requiring a certain communities or certain states and certain jurisdictions which have had a history of racial discrimination in voting to get approval in advance before making any changes to their district lines in order to be able to afford a fight that the redistricting plan that is being to beed -- anin order able to fortified that the redistricting plan that is proposed does not make a protected community worse off. host: looking at states gaining and losing seats. california will stay the same based on census information, as
we listen to joseph on our alignment from republicans. -- on our line of republicans. good morning. caller: i'm 70 years old. i have understood census and i understood redistricting. and i understand that census and redistricting is a done by government and government representatives. i think her program is ludicrous. what she is trying to do is to get environmentalist's, unionists, to get people who feel that, well, the past election should have been lost instead of one and, therefore, we will have influence. please, please, please let the world stay free. thank you. guest: i'm not sure what response is warranted. i think the redistricting process is better when it is out
in the open and when the public has an opportunity to participate. people of diverse viewpoints will provide it differing opinions, and it is important to those that are drawing of district lines to be able to process and understand and hear from diverse viewpoints. there is federal and state laws that are superimposed upon the public perception and public desires. there is no one district plan that is going to make everyone happy, because there are going to be elections and some people win elections and some people lose the election and there is nothing that can be done about that. what can be done is to make sure that everybody affected by the redistricting process skills the process is fair, and they were given the opportunity to be heard and to be able to explain what the needs of their communities are, and what sort of representation that is required in order for their communities to be able to make their needs met.
host: you can log on to brennan center.org. five points. number one, letting politicians choose their voters. eliminating income tends, or eliminating challengers as we spoke about with barack obama in 2000 and 2002. attacking partisans, diluting minority votes, splitting communities, and the possibility of destroying civility. do you want to respond to that? guest: all of those are very important to remember. one of the things we like to say about the citizens' guide is that we consider it a user's manual. people should own, the public should alone in the redistricting process. and we hope that the citizens' guide -- the public should own and the redistricting process. we hope that the citizens' guide will give them a sense so that they can effectively participate
in the process. and, in those instances in which the process in their state is not particularly open or it does not offer a lot of avenues for to the patient, we hope the information in that guide provides people with the confidence to demand the ability to participate. and encourage people to talk to their neighbors to be able to understand more about what their community is, who their community is, where the community is, and what they're representational needs are. host: leonard is joining us from cleveland. good morning with myrna perez of the brennan center. caller: good morning. ohio, and we will have the possibility of losing the two. and the duty and care of our electric voters and things, that
politicians, should be looking at that, but with us losing two is because people have moved away from ohio because of job loss, moved to another state for their job and they have to sell their homes and things. will ohio be represented? we have many presidential -- here in cleveland. they feel we are a vibrant city and they need our vote. when we lose that extra vote, what will happen for us, the people? guest: i'm seeing a consistent theme. we are having a number of people thatanin about issues are important to them and their neighbors and their country. it is precisely because people care about what happens to them and because redistricting is such an important part in our representation that the public needs to be able to participate
in and take advantage of those opportunities to participate. there is no question that the interests of the people calling in is that they want to have more of a say in their government and they are concerned about what is going to happen if they do not have an adequate say. and that is precisely why the brenman center does the public do.uationducation we to demystify some of the technical jargon and terms and, hopefully, because of that, people will feel like it is easier for them to engage. with respect to the states that are going to lose congressional seats, those are instances in which it is perhaps more critical because there is going to be more at stake for people when those, when there are fewer representatives to go all around. we hope, especially in states that are losing congressional
seats, but that they become more involved in the redistricting process and make sure that the drawers know which communities -- the line drawers know where they need representation. host: jeff sent these tweet. "should racial and ethnic minority political power exceed their share of registered voters?" is that in issue? guest: it is in fact true that racial and ethnic city has a role in the process. as a country, through the 14th and 15th amendment and the voting rights act, we have made a commitment that no one is going to be discriminated in this country in the political process on the basis of race or ethnicity. and, as a result of those commitments, there are certain protections in place in certain circumstances under a certain
set of facts with certain remedies. and it is important for people to realize that not only do these commitments exist, but they are not without limits. they are not without bonds. there are facts that need to be proven, standards that need to be met, remedies that are proper it, but when they are properly, we need to make good on the promises we as a nation have made that people will not be denied equal opportunity to elect their candidate of choice based on their race. host: becky in rhode island. good morning, becky. caller: good morning. i have to say this. democracy is a much-abused term. we hear it used as a smokescreen for so many agendas. and it's completely disregards what democracy is based on. -- it completely disregards what democracy is based on.
partisan packing is an important thing to watch out for. it went on to show that minorities were not denied their right oto have their points of view put across. i have seen it in my state that that excuse can be used for partisan packing. in my state, we have a district that looks like an octopus. i am not kidding. we have another that is shaped like a banana. we have seen the discussions between the black and hispanic communities, where black americans feel completely violated. their voice is denied. the constitution states that citizens have the right to vote and yet we are told, it is a violation of someone's right if they are required to prove who
are who they say they are, that they do have a right to vote. we see so many games being played. host: your response to that sentiment? guest: there was a lot packed in there. i think what is important to remember is that redistricting is a complicated factor that involves a balancing of a number of interests. and it is impossible to maximize every desirable value in redistricting, including how much a district looks like a neat circle, including population, including how competitive the district may be, including how many villages or cities are kept together. and a lot of the shape of the district can be viewed as a reflection of an attempt to balance those competing factors.
at the same time, as we all know, sometimes the shape is a result of partisan shenanigans, people trying to target opponent's, people trying to protect incumbents. and that is exactly why the public needs to be more educated and informed about the redistricting process, as the caller seems to be eager to do and it needs to be involved in the process. host: this is a process that will unfold as the census numbers are counted and the redistricting process gets under way in states around the country. myrna perez who is joining us, she is with the brennan center. guest: thank you. i've had a great time. host: the u.n. security council placing some tough new sanctions on libya, as president obama calls for muammar gaddafi yto step down.
now with the center for strategic and international studies and has met with muammar gaddafi, arnaud de borchgrave will be with us. first, a look at the other issues and gas that are making up the sunday morning programs on c-span -- and guests that are making of the sunday morning programs on c-span occurred >> beginning at noon, topics include funding the federal government, state budget shortfalls, and unrest in the middle east. nbc's "meet the press" begins at noon with david gregory welcoming armed services committee ranking member senator john mccain, a wisconsin republican governor scott walker and the afl and cio president. at 1:00, i hear abc's this week. the report live from tripoli on the uprisings their. re. in washington, white house correspondent has a round table discussion with jan brewer of
arizona and niki haley of south carolina and deval patrick and the governor of colorado. fox news sunday airs at 2:00 p.m. eastern. chris wallace in all comes mitch daniels and mike huckabee, former republican presidential candidate. at 3:00 p.m. eastern time at cnn's state of the union. they talk with john mccain, independent senator joe lieberman, and kent conrad. then connecticut democratic governor dan lloyd and former republican governor >> got. rick scott. the five network television talk shows are brought to as a public service by the networks and c- span. we begin at noon with nbc's "meet the press", 1:00, "this week,", fox news sunday, 3:00 p.m., cnn's "f state of the
union," and listen to them on 90.1 radio. on xm satellite, channel 132. >> i think our system of government is breaking down. i think the system of checks and balances we have in our systems are not operating properly. >> winslow wheeler headds ths te strauss military reform project. >> congress has to read key powers, the power to go to war, the power of the purse, and the power to investigate. the first two powers -- to go to war and of the purse -- are meaningless if congress does not exercise the power to investigate, and it is not doing that. >> see the rest of the interview
tonight on c-span's "q&a." with congress in recess and march 4 deadline for funding the federal government, see when house members set about finding the rest of this fiscal year. spread over four days, with 162 amendment, the debate is online at c-span's congressional chronicle with timelines and transcripts at c- span.org/congress. "washington journal" continues. host: reporter, columnist, and scholar arnaud de borchgrave. a regular contributor to upi. front-page headline of "the washington post" -- the sides of civil war, turmoil in the middle east. "the new york times", the vacuum after muammar gaddafi. in libya, long bread lines and barricades as former supporters,
no opponent, moved into the capital city. how will this story unfolds? guest: i have learned from long experience that political forecasting can only -- it can only end with assassination or murder or die in battle. there is no telling how he will go down, but he is finished. host: the un security council, a unanimous vote, 15-0. the secretary general of the un in new york. he is in washington this week. here is what he had to say. >> in my conversations with the leaders of the region and the world, and in my public and private statements, i have spoken out bluntly and repeatedly. the violence must stop. those responsible are shedding the blood of innocents and must be punished. fundamental human rights must be
respected. the challenge before us now is to protect libyan citizens and do all we can to hold the ongoing violence -- halt the ongoing violence. i urge the security council to consider the wide range of options for action. those include proposals for trade and financial sanctions, including targeted measures against the leadership, such as a ban on travel and the freezing of financial assets. some member states called for an arms embargo, others draw our attention to the egregious violations of human rights taking place in libya and urged the security council to take action to ensure real accountability. i urge the council to consider concrete action. host: the u.n. secretary-
general. will the sanctions for the people more than a leader? guest: there will be a lot of travail for the poor libyan people for a long time to come. if he's extradited to the international court, god help us all. it would be a long soap opera that would last for months if not years, with muammar gaddafi defending himself and attacking every power on earth. host: last week, you described muammar gaddafi as a manic depressive megalomaniac. guest: he started off as a rather appealing character. no signs of megalomania at that point. he was lucky when he took over on september 1, 1969, because the three people who might have been able to stop what he was doing were away -- the mi-6 head of station was in london on home
leave, the cia station chief was working his way through french restaurants from paris to marseilles, also finishing up his sleeve, and the king was on his yacht in the eastern mediterranean for medical treatment. that is how he managed to stage his cuopoup. at the beginning, he was very popular. you disguise himself as an old woman and shop at a hospital and say he was dying and needed immediate attention -- show up at a hospital and say he was dying in needed immediate attention. those are the kinds of gestures he did at the beginning that made him a very popular dictator. and things rapidly started going downhill when he decided that he was going to be the number 1 leader in all of sub-saharan africa. there was a very interesting , ecdote that was given to me
the former secretary general was getting increasingly curious as to why libya was getting every country in africa to vote against egypt's peace treaty with israel. he took a bunch of intelligence people in his delegation pretending to be diplomats and they were staying at the same hotel in freetown. and they discover that every african head of state was getting $1 million in a briefcase delivered to his room. and the only person who did not get that was the person from malawi who got $75,000. she was paying everybody off everywhere. throughout his career, he influenced with a mix of terrorism, disinformation, money, of course, and internal affairs of no less than 40 countries. host: "the new york times" as
saying that the obama administration needed to do more. this morning, "the weekly standard", obama squeeks up. he has been silent on the issue. guest: i hope we do not involved militarily in libya. i think it was a secretary gacy said anyone whoanted to do a foreign intervention and a country -- secretary gates who do a that they wanted to affo forward intervention would be crazy. it can be done. covert action can be done. it is wide open for anyone that wants to get involved. the u.s. navy can be offshore. there will be lots of refugees coming out of different parts of libya. the air force can have a no-fly zone much the way we had over
iraq for 10 years. host: from connecticut. good morning to you. steve, good morning. caller: nato and the europeans have to take the lead on this. muammar gaddafi comes across -- it is extremely disturbing to see what he is doing. i would describe him as a satan- worshiping mass murder. i am extremely upset about his just killing civilians on the streets. in no, i think, i am worried that nato is more concerned about the price of oil over the price of women and children. i mean, anything we can do to help the rebels of. i think the europeans should be taking the lead, especially with special forces or naval forces, not so much troops on the ground. that is my spin on things. guest: you are absolutely right,
sir. the problem with nato as they are heavily engaged in afghanistan, which is very unpopular. in all of the countries concerned, some of their countries have had their parliaments of both with the return of their contingents in afghanistan. everyone is reluctant to get involved and a third operation. this should be in the hands of the italians and the french and the brits. we will see what happens. but today, it is hard to tell who is in charge of what in libya. muammar gaddafi has surrendered certain parts of the capital and is now bunkered, hunkered down in what seems to be the barracks, his headquarters. the end can only be a matter of weeks, if not days. host: was the u.s. right to bring muammar gaddafi in from the cold?
the bush administration resumed full relations with libya. was it a mistake? guest: i don't think so. in 1993, at the end of a long interview in his tent, about pan am 103, he said, will you please tell your friends at the cia. "i'm not cia." "please tell the director that i have problems with the islamist extremists as much as anybody else in the eastern part of my country, in the mountain ranges, and i wish to cooperate with the u.s.." whether there was cooperation, i have no idea. i suspect there was. as for his abandoning his nuclear war was always she just obtained from khan in pakistan. iraq.vade
he thought, i'm next. he surrendered. caller: president obama has a foreign policy advisers, but he needs all the help he can get regarding the chaos in the middle east and africa. i would like to see president carter pr's former security officer as an adviser. i am very concerned for president obama. i am also very suspicious about how suddenly all of these uprisings began. statistically and diplomatically, they put president obama between a rock and a hard place. there are par for people and our cia and pentagon left over from the bushes administration who are not friends of obama. he needs someone he can trust. and the neocons and israel would
like nothing better than to put our president in an untenable position. guest: dr. brazinski has the ear of the president when it is necessary. he has been a friend of mine since 1954. i heard him the other day forecasting that this century would be bloodier than the last century. both of us were alive for 3/4 of it. i think what you're saying is true about muammar gaddafi. i think the president is getting everything that the cia knows. i do not think it is because the cia is disinforming him that you have not seen the results you seem to hope for. host: libya should be left in the hands of libyans, not the u.s., not france, or any other
country. when will we learn? guest: bob gates got it right when he said that anybody wants a third military operation should have his head examined. iraq was the most unnecessary war of my lifetime. today, iran has more influence than we do. baghdad has less electricity than they did under hisaddam hussein. 65% of the american people are against it and most of our allies cannot wait to get out. host: good morning. caller: i wanted to ask what you think the impact of economic sanctions will be on muammar gaddafi's regime, i f any. it seems to me like a rather blunt instrument to use for regime that is already isolated. i can understand freezing
assets, certainly, but closing of the country's and economic ties with the outside world is only going to impact the civilians, i would think. and i also want to agree with the previous caller that this is a no-win situation. intervention is an ugly prospect, but then, nonintervention makes the world -- apathetic.tic perc export isbya's main oil. if that to be cut off, saudi arabia which palms 8.5 million barrels could go up to 12 million and take up the slack. that would take several months. and prices would start to go up. if you read what happened in the u.k. in the last few days, gasoline is already up at $9 per gallon in london. host: in "the washington post", they have a broader look at
other countries, including syria. syria is trying to keep the lid on revolution. the rise and fall of protest demonstrations have shown that syrians share the yearning for dignity that is sweeping the arab world and illustrates why the president has been threatened -- has not been threatened by this type of anger. assad i think presdienident has learned a lot from his father. and i did many interviews with him during my "newsweek" career. on february 5, 1982, the late president assad killed 25,000 muslim brotherhood extremists. and i think after that, any
opposition to the president was automatically still. today, his son has a very close relations with syria. has 14 different intelligence services. i would imagine national- security, in turn on the social security is just as tight as it used to be during his father's -- internal security is just as tight as it used to be during his father's regime. host: with the members of what happened in 1979, was that a factor in this presence response to muammar gaddafi? guest: i do not think there is any question. there are many americans working in libya. and what happens if he stops 200 americans from leaving the country? we could have a standoff that could go on for a year or two.
host: we have someone from malta on our international line. caller: hello. mr. -- is corrupt. we are right next door to this nasty dictator. the un sanctions is a long-term thing. in the short term, he will kill more people. his bunker, he has millions and millions of dollars in cash underground. he would be paying people off, as many as he can. this man is a nutcase. nato should be involved. muammar gaddafi and his sons, some of his family members are living in malta. his sons have not really tried -- i think they should be
assassinated by some world power. this man is killed people in europe and america, or around the globe, in germany. what kind of leader is that? guest: as i said in "the washington times,"a couple of days ago, he is a megalomaniac. i did not write this, but i think it is certain that he has been on some kinds of drugs. if you look at his face today compared to two or three years ago, there is an amazing change. host: obama urging muammar gaddafi to quit. another headline from the l.a. times -- the arabs regain its dignity and dare to dream. many believe this heralds a dawn of dignity.
guest: you probably know better than anyone that the social networks, the social media, whether it is twitter or facebook, this is what started things in tunisia and it caught on in egypt, and there has been contagion. what is frightening for saudi arabia, the key country for oil, almost in the entire world, they are now surrounded on all sides by major troubles, whether it is olivia to the northwest, yemen to the southwest -- libya to the northwest and jordan and bahrain. bahrain is less than a million people, and 2/3 of their people is shia and it tends to be pro- iranian. a tiny country. that is the easiest place in the world for those who wish to
destabilize a county. host: our guest is arnaud de borchgrave. the editor at large at "the washington times." now at the center for strategic and international studies. next is tony from fort lauderdale, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. your last comment about the hostages in iran. i was involved on the uss nimitz on the fuel team. we trained for the situation that the oil fields would be shut down. all this will go back to israel. i talked to the jewish rabbis in south florida, are you ready for ezekiel 38, 39. the wealth of the world are worried about making money. there is no way out of this one.
guest: i would agree with you said that this has made things measurably more dangerous for israel. that is why i do not seek a settlement between the israelis and the palestinians. there is a hardening of attitudes in israel and it is quite understandable when they seek the enemy is up -- when they see the enemies of their country now moving all the way from "the today show" all we down to bahraithe tunisia to ba. the saudi royals should stetp down. guest: there are 7000 princes and 25,000 princess's. most of the jobs are in the hands of the family. they are not like the british royal family. they have direct ties to every tribe in the kingdom.
it is a coalition of tribes with a very large royal family. host: robert kaplan, "don't bet on democracy emerging quickly as countries struggle to create legitimate political orders." you are about that in egypt. guest: they've only had six years of democracy between 1946- 1952 with nassir and sadat and mubarak. they have never had democracy. they have head of parliament. with presidential rule -- they have had a parliament. host: good morning. caller: good morning. the bottom line is that -- how many were killed in algeria? how many people were killed in
india/ ? how many were killed in south africa? how many did the british to kill in kenya? muammar gaddafi, before it came to power, made sure they are educated, because there is a small literacy rate appear. [unintelligible] i was in libya years ago. it's a civil war now. muammar gaddafi has every right to defend its territory. host: where are from? he hung up. guest: no, muammar gaddafi -- largesse all hios over sub-saharan africa. my wife took a picture of him on all large couch with two heads
of state on either side of him. he has treated african heads of state with content, even though he was considered the most important leader. he has been dispensing the people's wealth for years to get everybody to stop criticizing him and support his policies. host: i want to get your expertise on the developing situation in north korea. "the new york times" in seoul, talking about the situation in north korea. another tough winter, not much food, precious little fuel, and the ongoing secession between kim jong il and his son. guest: the biggest fear is the collapse of north korea the way that east germany collapsed. east germany was easy compared to north korea appeared it costs -- a cross west germany about $1 trillion to receive
reunification. south korea would inherit the problem. there is no infrastructure. they would have to rebuild everything. it would be several trillion dollars to rebuild north korea, which is something they are anxious to avoid. host: would there be western support for a unified north korea? guest: there would be support, but where will the money come from? programs are being reduced all over the place. i did not see how that would be possible, how the western world is going to inherit the problems of a destroyed north korea because there is nothing there to make a viable state. host: so how will this situation resolved? guest: i think that south korea has to go on helping north korea and of to make sure it does not collapse appear. host: hartford, connecticut, democrats like. good morning. caller: maybe i am the only one
with some sympathy for muammar gaddafi and his family. i suggest he has deep connection in africa and some delegations from african states. tryy should go to libya, to convince him to get out of there so they can avoid bloodshed. how about that idea? i go people are listening and get him and his family out of their, give him some amnesty. the other day that he has a jewish roots. he could go to israel because of his grandmother? guest: grandmother technically. host: not going to happen. guest: the suggestion that the fed -- several african heads of state convince him to resign, that is not good enough. the un has decided that he is a war criminal. he should be judged by the
international court of justice. i do not see how three of his friends from sub-saharan africa and can come out with a different solution. host: muammar gaddafi in a telephone call had this to say about the conflict in this country. >> it's like fear, you should take the guns away from the kids. this is the responsibility of parents, fathers, mothers, and family members. and then you should arrest those behind them. that have caused all this mess. my condolences. to the families of those four people killed from the security forces and families.
gaddafi, his second appearance on state tv. earlier this week, he was holding an umbrella outside of a palace that was destroyed in the reagan administration. does he speak english? guest: are remember once the interpreter broke down. just been drafted on a friday and my wife was with me as a photographer, and he said, the interview is over. my wife said, but we know you speak english. very slowly. we promise that we will not tell anyone that you spoke english. he promised he would not use the language again. he did finish the interview in english. i have a very interesting meeting back in 1993 about the lockerbie disaster, the libyans and having blown up pan am 103 in 1988. and he said, the u.s. navy shot down the iranian airbus that was
crossing on a flight, shot down by the u.s. navy and they said it was an accident. it killed 290 people. all this was in halting english, off the record. the iranians are going to retaliate. use subcontracted to another service, which they give to the syrians. then they subcontract, and yes, we were involved that way. libya admitted it. host: independent line. jacksonville, florida. caller: i love your green tie. people should read daniel ferguson article in time magazine which talks about how president obama failed on the egyptian situation. the italians were in libya from 1911-1943, the british and
iraq, from 1903-1933, so when we talk about occupying the country, we should be wary of americans of doing that. our interests in the middle east are solely oil. we should be honest about that. let's consider, in closing, if we never invaded iraq, which donald rumsfeld has a book talking about that war and how he failed to find weapons of mass destruction, iraq would have freed itself today. that is my comments, and your guest is a great guy and very knowledgeable. thank him for his service to america. guest: iraq was a $1 trillion mistake. saddam hussein, for old dictator though he was, was the best defense against the run. host: america has become such a stranger to liberty, that we dare not rush to the age of those yearning to breathe free. guest: those yearning to breathe
three in that libya have done very well so far -- yearning to breathe free. as we said at the beginning, the fall of muammar gaddafi whether he is assassinated or commit suicide is a matter of time. host: the president calling for his immediate departure does what to this process? guest: i do not think it does anything. beyond listening to the un or the president of the united states, they are about to have a major battle, unless something happens to avoid the battle, which can only be suicide or murder. host: arnaud de borchgrave, of the center for strategic and international studies, and a columnist with upi. thanks for being with us. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning on "washington journal" which gets underway at 7:00 a.m. eastern time, 4:00 on the west coast. we will have the latest on the developing situation in libya. also, members of the house and
senate tried to craft oa cr to keep the government running beyond march 4. thanks for joining us on sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend, and have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up and a few minutes, "newsmakers" with maryland congressman chris van hollen, . then our live coverage from the national governors' association with a discussion on how to
sustain medicaid. more at 3:00 p.m. with a forum on the state's role in server security -- cyber security. just ahead, maryland congressman chris van hollen will talk about the work on funding the government through fiscal year 2011. yesterday, the vendors are talked about what any reduction in federal spending would have on -- governors talked about what any reduction in seven federal funding would have on state economies. >> we are fragile. we are fragile. so anything congress does, whether it is a shutdown or cuts that would directly impact the state, can be of considerable concern to us, because we do not need a hit up right now our and our coverage. while it is a fragile, while we are recovering, we can see very positive things happening in the private sector in almost all of our states, but still, we can
ill afford to have a government shutdown and cuts that will dramatically impact the states. next question? certification? >> education funding? the other cliff. what are states doing to prepare for this coming funding shortfall, and are we about to see a mass layoff of teachers across the country? >> as i said earlier, the federal government could shut down. unlike some of my colleagues, i look at it all as pay now or pay the other. me later. states are trying to struggle or take in the state of maine, that is the one area are where we are very fortunate where we will not seek cuts in education. i do believe we have a long ways to go to not only bring back the
state of maine and the country on an international level of education, but we are focused on not only attaining higher achievements of our students that go to college, but i believe for one, that we need electricians, plumbers, people in the trade. and in our state, we are focusing on bringing the trades back. the state of maine is very dependent on its natural resources. and what the federal government can do for us is not money. it is flexibility. let us run our state with the resources that we have, and we would be very happy to work with you in dealing with the deficit. >> let me say in nebraska, i have two parties to continue to work for our state -- education
and jobs. we need education success and economic success. they are linked together. to every zero years ago i stood up with the leaders of the teachers, the administrators, the school boards, as we accepted the stimulus funding. we alerted everyone it would go away in two years, so take advantage of those two years in an efficient go away in two years. i hope the layoffs will be minimal. education is key to our future success. >> i want to offer a different perspective. i am from guam. we are in the same time zone as japan. when you talk about the issue of education, pennywise, pound foolish. we are a mini hawaii. it is a m